Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: 543.rar attachment
From: "Sean Crawford" <sean01 () accnet com au>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:07:17 +1100
To all those following this thread. I just want to make my point of view clear about this subject with my .02 cents worth included....... I DO NOT have a have any problem at all about letting compressed files through my mail servers that are running NOD32 as a Virus scanner or at the very least a quarantine system for suss files. Why start blocking compressed file extensions?, start messing with and restricting what should and can be an open form of communication in such a manner and the system becomes a hassle for the user instead of a useful tool.... Patch all machines, firewall/s, good virus scanner software, backups and fall over plans are of a lot more use than draconian filters in my view. Sean. .
Current thread:
- Re: 543.rar attachment, (continued)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Andrew Pretzl (Mar 07)
- RE: 543.rar attachment Andrew Shore (Mar 07)
- RE: 543.rar attachment adisegna (Mar 08)
- RE: 543.rar attachment Sean Crawford (Mar 09)
- RE: 543.rar attachment adisegna (Mar 11)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Kinnell (Mar 14)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Steven DeFord (Mar 14)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Kinnell (Mar 14)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Jonathan Loh (Mar 14)
- RE: 543.rar attachment adisegna (Mar 14)
- Re: 543.rar attachment David J ONEILL (Mar 15)
- RE: 543.rar attachment Sean Crawford (Mar 16)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Jonathan Loh (Mar 15)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Kinnell (Mar 15)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Jonathan Loh (Mar 15)
- Re: 543.rar attachment SAMIR SHUKRI (Mar 16)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Kinnell (Mar 15)
- Re: 543.rar attachment David J ONEILL (Mar 15)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Jonathan Loh (Mar 15)
- Re: 543.rar attachment David J ONEILL (Mar 15)
- Re: 543.rar attachment Micro Kluge (Mar 16)
- FW: 543.rar attachment adisegna (Mar 16)
- RE: 543.rar attachment adisegna (Mar 16)
